battleshipcraftfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Super-Warships/@comment-26908628-20161114201103/@comment-12494172-20161119204528
The taller your ship becomes, the less warship craft wants you to move quickly. So exactly where is this relevant? Are you trying to say my ships could be faster? Or are you saying that my ships are tall? Explain. I stated here; The bridges on my ships sat somewhere between American fat bridges in height, and pagoda bridges in width. As a reference to overall dimensions, using the generally low height of American superstructures, and combining it with the thin build of those from Japan. Also, as a general rule, odd hulls are often much slower, especially for larger ships. Do you particularly fathom then, why my 195+ knot fleet's fastest ships regardless of construction all use odd hull widths? Or would you prefer to deny it? The comment about the game physics disliking uniformity is also just wrong. ''' So do you have a counter argument to my statement uniform hull increments are against the games physics model at high speeds? '''The game dislikes angled blocks, with angles that are directly in contact with that water, but as far as square blocks touching the water goes, it often prefers a uniform 45 degree angle at the bow. So exactly what do you mean? Are you now saying angled blocks are good or is this a math fail? Squares have 90* outside angles, not 45*. Now 45 degree angles look absolutely awful, so I don't use them, but the game loves their physics nevertheless Assuming you mean 90* and not 45* then I also beg to differ here. If properly constructed, you can sort of reduce the effect significantly by minizing the visual appearance of 90* angles. Assuming 45* is true, then I agree 45* gets in the way alot. As far as my choice of a historical ship goes, I figured I'd just let you know that I don't play WSC for historical accuracy, I play to win, and sometimes I want to win with a ship that looks like a real one. I've built my fair share of Super-Warhsips and they manage 194.5 knots just fine, as well as having armor layouts that would make you think twice about how effective a battleship bridge is for combat. Hmm. This makes me question if you are actually reading... However all of this becomes moot point by VIP level, and similarly-'' So cheap solutions for armor to make the ship smaller somehow pull it into VIP level because magic. '''And finally, what I mean by the fact that functional beauty doesn't exist, is that anything that looks like a real ship, is going to be vastly inferior to anything made simply to be powerful.' Same thing applies to notation in section above. A low center of mass is a wonderful problem to have. Your ship wont flip as easily when damaged. A wonderful problem that ruins a PT boats ability to manage out of the water maneuvering. A wonderful problem that causes them to flip from maneuvering because they won't settle properly. I see. Please don't argue with me as far the the merits of ship shape and speed tweaking go. You talked about getting a small ship to hit 194.5 on the first power notch. Come talk to me when you can get a SUBMARINE to hit 194.4 WITHOUT AN ENGINE. When did I say that was an accomplishment? I said it was stupid and redundant to have 194.5 knots (the Risu) and brought up another vessel, a vessel of perhaps the size of large destroyer hitting 194.4 knots at first tick. Which was the claim of another player. So I now need "credentials" to disagree with "your majesty" openly on those subjects? Curious how this is going. By the way, I hope such an attempted vessel will not reach excessive size, for my phone struggles to handle Yamato in the first place. I have limited knowledge in submarines yet so far, and my PT fleet That reminds me, what is the fastest combat boat you've ever seen? I'm just curious to see how the Type 43 Hayabusa stacks on "fast" and armored.